Patient perceptions of body mass index restrictions limiting fertility care for women with high body mass index.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the patient experience of women with high body mass index (BMI) with BMI restrictions that limit fertility care? DESIGN: Qualitative study using in-depth, semi-structured interview methodology. Interview transcripts were analysed for iterative themes in accordance with principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: Forty women with a BMI of 35 kg/m2 or higher with scheduled or completed appointment at the Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (REI) clinic completed an interview. Most participants experienced BMI restrictions as unjust. Many perceived that BMI restrictions on fertility care may be medically justified and were in support of weight loss discussions to improve chances of pregnancy; however, several argued that they should have autonomy to commence treatment following an individualized risk assessment. Participants offered recommendations to improve discussion of BMI restrictions and weight loss, including framing the conversation as supportive of their reproductive goals and offering proactive referral to weight loss support to prevent the perception that BMI is a categorical exclusion to future fertility care. CONCLUSIONS: Participant experiences highlight a need for enhanced strategies for communicating BMI restrictions and weight loss recommendations in ways that are perceived to be supportive of patients' fertility goals without further contributing to weight bias and stigma experienced in medical settings. Opportunities for training to mitigate experiences of weight stigma may be beneficial for clinical and non-clinical staff. Evaluation of BMI policies should be undertaken within the context of clinic policies that permit or prohibit fertility care for other high-risk groups.

Personalised virtual gene panels reduce interpretation workload and maintain diagnostic rates of proband-only clinical exome sequencing for rare disorders.

PURPOSE: The increased adoption of genomic strategies in the clinic makes it imperative for diagnostic laboratories to improve the efficiency of variant interpretation. Clinical exome sequencing (CES) is becoming a valuable diagnostic tool, capable of meeting the diagnostic demand imposed by the vast array of different rare monogenic disorders. We have assessed a clinician-led and phenotype-based approach for virtual gene panel generation for analysis of targeted CES in patients with rare disease in a single institution. METHODS: Retrospective survey of 400 consecutive cases presumed by clinicians to have rare monogenic disorders, referred on singleton basis for targeted CES. We evaluated diagnostic yield and variant workload to characterise the usefulness of a clinician-led approach for generation of virtual gene panels that can incorporate up to three different phenotype-driven gene selection methods. RESULTS: Abnormalities of the nervous system (54.5%), including intellectual disability, head and neck (19%), skeletal system (16%), ear (15%) and eye (15%) were the most common clinical features reported in referrals. Combined phenotype-driven strategies for virtual gene panel generation were used in 57% of cases. On average, 7.3 variants (median=5) per case were retained for clinical interpretation. The overall diagnostic rate of proband-only CES using personalised phenotype-driven virtual gene panels was 24%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that personalised virtual gene panels are a cost-effective approach for variant analysis of CES, maintaining diagnostic yield and optimising the use of resources for clinical genomic sequencing in the clinic.

Cancer Screening Experiences of Black Breast and Ovarian Cancer Patients and Family Members.

Black women experience disproportionate rates of advanced breast cancer diagnoses and mortality. Mammography is a proven and effective tool in early breast cancer detection and impacts patient outcomes. We interviewed Black women with a personal or family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer to understand their screening experiences and views. N = 61 individuals completed an interview. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed for themes regarding clinical experiences, guideline adherence, and family sharing specific to Black women and their families. Most participants were college educated with active health insurance. Women in this cohort were knowledgeable about the benefits of mammography and described few barriers to adhering to annual mammogram guidelines. Some with first-degree family history were frustrated at insurance barriers to mammography before the age of 40. Participants were generally comfortable encouraging family and friends to receive mammograms and expressed a desire for a similar screening tool for ovarian cancer. However, they expressed concern that factors such as screening awareness and education, lack of insurance coverage, and other systematic barriers might prevent other Black women from receiving regular screening. Black women in this cohort reported high adherence to mammography guidelines, but expressed concern about cultural and financial barriers that may impact cancer screening access in the population more generally and contribute to disparities. Participants noted the importance of frank and open discussions of breast cancer screening in their families and community as a means of improving awareness.

Ethical considerations of maternal-fetal surgery.

The practice of maternal-fetal surgery (MFS) has expanded from lethal fetal conditions to conditions which are significantly disabling but not a lethal fetal abnormality. The inclusion of myelomeningocele within the scope of MFS in the 1990s sparked a renewed debate over the ethics of MFS. While demonstrating increasing efficacy and range of application, MFS continues to be ethically fraught due to the inherent tension between maternal and fetal interests. Ethical issues central to MFS include the patienthood of the fetus; the balance of risks and benefits between the woman and fetus; informed consent for experimental procedures; and determination of conditions that meet ethical qualifications for MFS intervention. These concerns are likely to persist and evolve as perinatal medicine continues to advance. Here we summarize the current state of MFS ethics, highlighting the major positions in the literature thus far as well as examine future directions. It is essential robust discussions of these important issues continue both to ensure ethical medical practice and to provide support to clinicians, pregnant women, and their families.

Specific mutations in KRAS codon 12 are associated with worse overall survival in patients with advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Activating mutations in KRAS have been suggested as potential predictive and prognostic biomarkers. However, the prognostic impact of specific point mutations remains less clear. This study assessed the prognostic impact of specific KRAS mutations on survival for patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients KRAS typed for advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer between 2010 and 2015 in a UK Cancer Network. RESULTS: We evaluated the impact of KRAS genotype in 392 patients. Mutated KRAS was detected in 42.9% of tumours. KRAS mutations were more common in moderate vs well-differentiated tumours. On multivariate analysis, primary tumour T stage (HR 2.77 (1.54-4.98), P=0.001), N stage (HR 1.51 (1.01-2.26), P=0.04), curative intent surgery (HR 0.51 (0.34-0.76), P=0.001), tumour grade (HR 0.44 (0.30-0.65), P=0.001) and KRAS mutation (1.54 (1.23-2.12), P=0.005) were all predictive of overall survival. Patients with KRAS codon 12 mutations had worse overall survival (HR 1.76 (95% CI 1.27-2.43), P=0.001). Among the five most common codon 12 mutations, only p.G12C (HR 2.21 (1.15-4.25), P=0.01) and p.G12V (HR 1.69 (1.08-2.62), P=0.02) were predictive of overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with colorectal cancer, p.G12C and p.G12V mutations in codon 12 were independently associated with worse overall survival after diagnosis.

"There's not enough studies": Views of black breast and ovarian cancer patients on research participation.

BACKGROUND: Black breast and ovarian cancer patients are underrepresented in clinical cancer trials disproportionate to the prevalence of these cancers in Black females. Historically, lower enrollment has been attributed to individualized factors, including medical mistrust, but more recently structural factors, including systemic racism, have received additional scrutiny. We interviewed Black women with a personal or family history of breast and ovarian cancer to understand their views and experiences related to research participation. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted via telephone or video conference and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were qualitatively analyzed for iterative themes related to the offer and participation in cancer clinical trials and research studies, impact on cancer care, and recommendations to increase enrollment of Black patients. RESULTS: Sixty-one Black women completed an interview. Participants expressed that Black women are underrepresented in cancer research, and that this negatively impacted their own care. Many cited past historical abuses, including the Tuskegee syphilis trial, as a potential factor for lower enrollment but suggested that lower enrollment was better understood in the context of the entirety of their healthcare experiences, including present-day examples of patient mistreatment or dismissal. Participants suggested that proactive community engagement, transparency, and increased representation of Black research team members were strategies likely to foster trust and bolster research participation. CONCLUSION(S): Medical mistrust is only a partial factor in the lower participation of Black patients in cancer research. Researchers should implement the strategies identified by our participants to promote diverse enrollment and ensure that Black patients are included in future therapeutic advances.